5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Murmansk.
6.  The applicant brought proceedings against the Murmansk Regional branch of the Pension Fund (“the initial respondent”) seeking to have his pension recalculated in view of the fact that he worked in the Far North of Russia and had become entitled to preferential conditions of retirement. The applicant relied on the provisions of the 1993 Act on Guarantees and Compensations for Persons Working and Residing in the Far North (“the Far North Act”). The respondent authority disagreed, stating that provisions of the Pensions Act (in force as of 1 January 2002) were to be applied and that those provisions did not contain any basis for the requested increase.
7.  On 10 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and found that the Far North Act remained in force and was applicable to the dispute at stake. The court ordered the Murmansk Regional Department of the Pension Fund to recalculate his pension in accordance with the preferential conditions and to pay him the arrears for the period from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2002 in the amount of 1,642.64 Russian roubles (RUB) and to further recalculate his pension in line with the applicable provisions of the pensions law, that is to increase it at a time and a half rate.
8.  The respondent authority appealed, arguing an incorrect application of the domestic law. On 30 October 2002 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.
9.  On 27 January 2003 the respondent authority requested the district court to modify the way of execution, arguing that the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Pensions Fund was a due authority to enforce the judgment.
10.  On 12 February 2003 the initial respondent claimed suspension of the enforcement proceedings pending determination of the request.
11.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court granted the request.
12.  On 19 February 2003 the same court ordered that the judgment was to be enforced by the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Pensions Fund (“the District Department”).
13.  On 6 March 2003 the District Department challenged the above decision. On 10 April 2003 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ruling of 19 February 2003.
14.  On 21 January 2003 the bailiffs’ service recovered RUB 1,642.64 from the District Department. The payment order erroneously defined the purpose of the payment as “reimbursement of the transportation expenses”. The District Department challenged the recovery as unlawful, referring to the error in the documents. On 29 April 2003 the judicial award in the amount of RUB 1,642.64 was paid to the applicant.
15.  On 24 September 2003 the bailiffs’ service fined the head of the District Department for the failure to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour. The head of the District Department challenged that decision. According to the Government, on 22 December 2003 the District Court adjourned the enforcement proceedings pending determination of a dispute until 7 April 2004. It appears that the proceedings were resumed after that date. The Government did not provide copies of the respective documents.
16.  On 29 January 2004 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reviewed constitutionality of certain legal provisions concerning calculation of the pensions and clarified how to apply the law.
17.  On 25 June 2004 the District Court granted the request by the District Department of 14 April 2004 to reopen the case owing to a newly discovered circumstance as defined in Article 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the binding clarifications of the Constitutional Court of 29 January 2004. The court decided to annul the judgment and to remit the case for a fresh examination.
18.  On 2 September 2004 District Court examined the case afresh and dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant did not appeal against the judgment.
19.  On 19 October 2004 the District Court ordered the applicant to reimburse RUB 1,642.64 paid to him under the judgment of 10 June 2002. The applicant appealed. On 15 December 2004 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.
20.  The Court was notified of the events outlined in paragraphs 16‑19 above by the Government on 11 September 2007, date of the submission of their observations.